G. True Nelson: Former Deputy Sheriff, Military Officer, FBI Special Agent, and Security Consultant / Private Investigator. He currently resides in the Portland, Oregon Metro area. He is a writer on crime and judicial process; as well as discussing his personal observations on American culture and social mores.

RETURN

Friday, May 12, 2017

FBI Director James Comey; His Termination; Justified: Yes

I have some comments regarding the sudden termination of James
Comey, FBI Director. It seemed pretty clear
that Director Comey had to go. I do not,
however, agree with the manner in which he was given his walking papers. Ham-fisted.
You just don’t treat people that way.
But the President just doesn’t seem to get it.

I understand why a President, any President, under the given
circumstances, would have ‘fired’ Comey.
The Director seems to have let his ego overwhelm his judgement. I listened to all of his recent testimony
before the Senate Committee; and it made me cringe. He was loving the limelight, basking in the
attention. It was too obvious. His statement, in consideration that he
might have influenced the Presidential election in some way, had made him
“mildly nauseous,” well he made me mildly nauseous.
An FBI Director simply does not talk that way. My opinion.

Now, I must say that Comey, as I understand it, was fairly
well liked in the Bureau. Generally
speaking, most who have worked with him consider him to be a good and decent
man – intelligent, personable, and well versed in the law. But those qualities do not necessarily make a
good Director of the FBI.

His inevitable downfall began with his ‘prosecutive opinion’
regarding Hillary Clinton. At that
point, he apparently decided to assert his primacy over the Attorney General’s
Office which is, theoretically at least, his superior. His determination that Hillary Clinton should
not be prosecuted – after describing in some detail how she was undoubtedly in
violation of Federal Law – was something of a shock to those who have worked in
federal law enforcement. He stated that
there was no indication of “intent.’
When the relevant statutes protecting classified information do not, for
the most part, require establishing ‘intent.’
Hillary Clinton violated the law – pure and simple. Comey should have turned that information
over to the Department of Justice for them to make the decision as to whether
or not they were willing to prosecute, and if not why not.

Summation: Hillary
Clinton was either ‘off the chart’ ignorant of how to handle classified
information, or she purposely defied the law – feeling, I suppose, that she was
above the mundanity of such laws. I
believe the latter.

After exonerating her, Comey was later trapped attempting to
explain to Congress and the American public why the FBI had to reopen the investigation
of Hillary, and her errant emails, right before the Presidential election. The Weiner computer. Whoops.
Last straw.

And, what was the genesis of all this? Well, of course, it was the private meeting
of the Master Manipulator Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch on
the tarmac where, according to Lynch, they discussed grandchildren and
golf. How stupid do they think we are?

Sorry Mr. Comey but you allowed yourself to become
collateral damage of that meeting. It’s
best that you move on.

Three Laws for Effective Gun Control

Here are three potential laws that I would recommend for effective gun control:

1) Convicted felon in possession of a gun: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

2) Knowingly selling or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

3) Theft of a gun, during the commission of a felony: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole - sentence in addition to any time associated with the attendant felony.